BMJ  2004;328:767 (27 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7442.767-b

Letter

Labouring in water

Method is unclear

EDITOR—The method of the study by Cluett et al comparing labouring in water with standard augmentation in managing dystocia requires clarification.¹ The authors have not defined the criteria by which the first stage of labour was diagnosed, thus putting into question the diagnosis of dystocia.

In current practice an expectant policy is advocated especially during the latent phase of labour, to avoid unnecessary intervention. It is unclear whether the authors have taken this into account and whether some women were inappropriately recruited.

We think that an alternative arm of the study should have included an expectant group without recourse to water immersion or augmentation and thus the true impact of water immersion would be defined. The inclusion of women with both intact and ruptured membranes in each study arm further adds to difficulty in evaluating the true effect of water immersion.

Conquest Hospital, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 7RD jamal.zaidi{at}esht.nhs.uk

University of Brighton, East Sussex

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K, Saunders NJ. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ 2004;328: 314. (7 February.)[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour

Elizabeth R Cluett, Ruth M Pickering, Kathryn Getliffe, and Nigel James St George Saunders
BMJ 2004 328: 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]